Alexanders tollerance of religions and races

[Iskander_32]

Hi Companions I would like to raise an issue regarding Alexander,modern society and scholars would label our man a warmonger and a killer.The above may be somewhat true as a man of war killing was a part of that,but todays society should also remember that the same man showed more tollerance of religions and races than most today.Christianity and Islam certainly discriminates, its just ironic that a man of war was more tollerant and understanding than the religious representatives, priests,monks etc.I am totally against any kind of religious teachings that brainwash and undermine mans intelligence,but indeed I do respect anyone who has faith and belief in anything,for what its worth if god is there im sure we make our own way by living good lives.RegardsKenny

[lucinos]

"I wish all of you, now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily, in peace. All mortals from now on will live like one people, united, and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your own country with common laws, a country where the best and the brightest rule, regardless of race. I do not separate people, as do the narrow-minded, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is worse than a barbarian. If ever differences arose, never resort to arms, but resolve them peacefully. If need be, I will serve as your arbitrator. Do not consider God as a dictatorial Ruler, but as Father of all, so that your conduct would resemble the cohabitation of siblings within one family. On my part, I consider all of you equal, white or dark, and I would like you not to be only plain subjects of my Commonwealth, but all shareholders, all partners. To the extent it is in my power, I shall try to accomplish all that I promise. Keep the oath we are taking with the libation tonight like a Contract of Love"

[marcus]

Of course, the biggest problem nowadays is that, as you say, many Christians and Muslims 'discriminate'. However, both of those religions (both of which I respect in equal measures) are supposedly tolerant - and Islam was tolerant for a lot longer than Christianity was, too!However, I don't think Alexander was particularly remarkable in his tolerance of 'foreign' religions. Historically, and for quite obvious reasons, polytheistic religions have always been tolerant, inclusive and syncretic. All the bestMarcus

[nick]

And the world that Alexander conquered had also enjoyed - with only a very few exceptions - great tolerance towards etnic and religious minorities for two centuries. That was the political, social framework that Alexander inherited.To dig one step deeper: I suppose the point is the difference between Truth and Virtue. Both Christianity and Islam are religions which reason from the concept of Truth. "This is the only, single Truth and we are 100% sure that it is." In Alexander's time, e.g. Zoroastrism, did not reason from the concept of Truth, but from the concept of Virtue. Not what is "true" is of major importance, but what is "good" (to do, to think, to say) is the key.Regards -Nick

[peter]

Alexanders all inclusive approach was a weakness rather than a virtue, his poeple didnt want it and ultimately after his death it failed.
It may have been noble in intent but it was entirley misguided.
Today Europe is currently a tinder keg due to all the unchecked Islamic migration. The first Islamic bomb in the UK or France will ignite that keg.

[marcus]

I'm struggling to understand what Alexander's tolerance of other religions and cultures has to do with Islam, or modern day terrorists (of any religion).M

[Islamaphobic]

My point is I live in a tolerant and increasingly multi-ethnic society and I dont agree with it or like it.
Nor did Alexanders Macedonians in his time.
His people saw the danger that his ethnic mixing policy was creating , it was threatening their own identity and forcing them into ways they didnt like or accept. My choice is to live in a white christian democracy and let other creeds get on with their chosen lifestyles within their OWN borders e.g , Saudi Arabia - where they attack and shoot white people on sight!
Of course I'm labelled a racist bigot for daring to espouse such a view, while Islam , the most bigoted and dangerous dogma in the world is imported en-masse into my country (UK) and more and more temples of hate & ignorance (Mosques) are built at public expense on my doorstep.
My point is Alexander was the first individual in history to attempt a mix of cultures and peoples, and his experiment was a distaster..nothing has changed since then.Rant over

[marcus]

Well, OK, I now understand what you're trying to say. I don't agree with any of it ... but that's not the issue.On the other hand, while you are entitled to your opinions, please spare a thought for other forum members' feelings. It is sometimes better to keep quiet...All the bestMarcus

[Link]

ARRIAN In the first place, as is reasonable, I shall begin my speech from my father Philip. For he found you vagabonds and destitute of means, most of you clad in hides, feeding a few sheep up the mountain sides, for the protection of which you had to fight with small success against Illyrians, Triballians, and the border Thracians. Instead of the hides he gave you cloaks to wear, and from the mountains he led you down into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighbouring barbarians, so that you were no longer compelled to preserve yourselves by trusting rather to the inaccessible strongholds than to your own valour. He made you colonists of cities, which he adorned with useful laws and customs; and from being slaves and subjects, he made you rulers over those very barbarians by whom you yourselves, as well as your property, were previously liable to be carried off or ravaged. He also added the greater part of Thrace to Macedonia, and by seizing the most conveniently situated places on the sea-coast, he spread abundance over the land from commerce, and made the working of the mines a secure employment. He made you rulers over the Thessalians, of whom you had formerly been in mortal fear; and by humbling the nation of the Phocians, he rendered the avenue into Greece broad and easy for you, instead of being narrow and difficult. The Athenians and Thebans, who were always lying in wait to attack Macedonia, he humbled to such a degree, I also then rendering him my personal aid in the campaign, that instead of paying tribute to the former and being vassals to the latter, those States in their turn procure security to themselves by our assistance. He penetrated into the Peloponnese, and after regulating its affairs, was publicly declared commander-in-chief of all the rest of Greece in the expedition against the Persian, adding this glory not more to himself than to the commonwealth of the Macedonians. These were the advantages which accrued to you from my father Philip; great indeed if looked at by themselves, but small if compared with those you have obtained from me. For though I inherited from my father only a few gold and silver goblets, and there were not even sixty talents in the treasury, and though I found myself charged with a debt of 500 talents owing by Philip, and I was obliged myself to borrow 800 talents in addition to these, I started from the country which could not decently support you, and forthwith laid open to you the passage of

[Link]

ARRIAN He promised to take care that they should be brought up as Macedonians, educating them not only in general matters but also in the art of war. He also undertook to lead them into Macedonia when they arrived at manhood, and hand them over to their fathers. These uncertain and obscure promises were made to them as they were departing; and he thought he was giving a most indubitable proof of the friendship and affection he had for them by sending with them, as their guardian and the leader of the expedition, Craterus, the man most faithful to him, and whom he valued equally with himself. Then, having saluted them all, he with tears dismissed them likewise weeping from his presence. He ordered Craterus to lead these men back, and when he had done so, to take upon himself the government of Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly, and to preside over the freedom of the Greeks. He also ordered Antipater to bring to him the Macedonians of manly age as successors to those who were being sent back. He despatched Polysperchon also with Craterus, as his second in command, so that if any mishap befell Craterus on the march (for he was sending him back on account of the weakness of his health), those who were going might not be in need of a general. A secret report was also going about that Alexander was now overcome by his mother's accusations of Antipater, and that he wished to remove him from Macedonia. This report was current among those who interpret royal actions more jealously the more they are concealed, and who are inclined to construe fidelity into something bad rather than to accept it as real; a course to which they are led by appearances and their own depravity. But perhaps this sending for Antipater was not designed for his dishonour, but rather to prevent any unpleasant consequences to Antipater and Olympias from their quarrel which he might not himself be able to rectify. For they were incessantly writing to Alexander, the former saying that the arrogance, acerbity, and meddlesomeness of Olympias was exceedingly unbecoming to the king's mother; insomuch that Alexander was related to have used the following remark in reference to the reports which he received about his mother: that she was exacting from him a heavy house-rent for the ten months. The queen wrote that Antipater was overweeningly insolent in his pretensions to sovereignty as well as in the service of his court, no longer remembering the one who had appointed him, but claiming to win and hold

[Link]

the first rank among the Greeks and even the Macedonians.30. Whoever therefore reproaches Alexander as a bad man, let him do so; but let him first not only bring before his mind all his actions deserving reproach, but also gather into one view all his deeds of every kind. Then, indeed, let him reflect who he is himself, and what kind of fortune he has experienced; and then consider who that man was whom he reproaches as bad, and to what a height of human success he attained, becoming without any dispute king of both continents," and reaching every place by his fame; while he himself who reproaches him is of smaller account, spending his labour on petty objects, which, however, he does not succeed in effecting, petty as they are. For my own part, I think there was at that time no race of men, no city, nor even a single individual to whom Alexander's name and fame had not penetrated. For this reason it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human being could not have been born without the agency of the deity. And this is said to have been revealed after Alexander's death by the oracular responses, by the visions which presented themselves to various people, and by the dreams which were seen by different individuals. It is also shown by the honour given to him by men up to the present time, and by the remembrance which is still held of him as more than human. Even at the present time, after so long an interval, other oracular responses in his honour have been given to the nation of the Macedonians. In relating the history of Alexander's achievements, there are some things which I have been compelled to censure; but I am not ashamed to admire Alexander himself. Those actions I have branded as bad, both from a regard to my own veracity, and at the same time for the benefit of mankind. For this reason I myself undertook the task of writing this history not without the agency of god. Arrian on Alexander[ Arrian, The Anabasis of Alexander, together with the Indica, E. J. Chinnock, tr. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1893), bk. vii. ]

[Link]

Arrian Then Alexander interrupting him, said, "But all of you without exception I consider my kinsmen, and so from this time I shall call you." When he had said this, Callines advanced and saluted him with a kiss, and so did all those who wished to salute him. Then they took up their weapons and returned to the camp, shouting and singing a song of thanksgiving. After this Alexander offered sacrifice to the gods to whom it was his custom to sacrifice, and gave a public banquet, over which he himself presided, with the Macedonians sitting around him; and next to them the Persians; after whom came the men of the other nations, preferred in honour for their personal rank or for some meritorious action. The king and his guests drew wine from the same bowl and poured out the same libations, both the Grecian prophets and the Magians commencing the ceremony. He prayed for other blessings, and especially that harmony and community of rule might exist between the Macedonians and Persians. The common account is, that those who took part in this banquet were 9,000 in number, that all of them poured out one libation, and after it sang a song of thanksgiving.

[agesilaos]

The great thing is that Alexander's tolerance is just so much bunk.The speech quoted at length from Arrian betrays its vulgate source by setting itself in SUSA, while Arrian has already moved the action to OPIS. The vulgate has the mutiny in Susa.Also this speech is largely Arrian's and as a Stoic he believed in the unity of mankind and finding it in later sources promoted it somewhat. The so-called 'Oath' is of even less worth.It is clear enough that Alexander's policy was not one of racial fusion but one of racial rivalry, the Persian elements in the New Model Army are to counter-balance the Macedonian element, which had betrayed him on the Hyphasis; the marriages are intended to establish a ruling elite loyal to him and increase the pool from which the administration could be drawn, only the Persian nobility are included; allowing the soldiers to marry their campaign wives legitimises their offspring and allows them to become Macedones, a constituency which will owe everything to him.None of this is lily-livered or liberal it is real-politik; tackling the problems of ruling an ethnically diverse empire with meagre human resources.As for religious tolerance, he was not tolerant of the Brahamins, whom he extirpated mistaking a priestly class for a nation nor the Zoroastrians whose texts he destroyed, had he encountered the Jews he would surely have smitten them, the fate of Alchimachos among the Samaritans may point to a religious back-lash but evidence is scanty. In short Marcus is quite right about polytheistic systems but the only tolerate similar systems monotheism is anathema and Indian belief beyond their understanding.

[Kit]

I agree. Alexander was a pragmatist.Genghis Khan was far more tolerant of other religions than Alexander, and for equally pragmtic reasons-You can worship whoever you want to, so long as you pay your taxes, obey the laws of the mongols, and acknowledge the supremacy of the Great Khan!That could just as easily be applied to Alexander! Kit.

[smittysmitty]

Hi all,Yes I quite agree with the point of view, racial tolerance existed as long as it were practicable. I find Nick W's comment re. this racial tolerance policy being inherrited by ATG very intersting.I wonder how much of this policy of racial tolerance was ATG's, or was it something Argeads practiced long before the time of ATG. Philip had subdued Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians and Scythians, let alone people we don't know about or have been categorized into the above mentioned races. I wonder if religious tolerance was expressed to these races.
cheers!